is a draft imminent?

[koolking1]

the rhetoric is ratching up - Iran and North Korea in the gunsights. Is the draft coming soon to you?

[Biohazard]

No. Our all-volunteer armed forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft. It's not about whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf of my country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Iran is not in gunsights in terms of an invasion and regime change. There are powers within Iran that are slowly turning the wheels against the Islamic fundamentalists. Any attack on Iran will be tactical air strikes on facilities to keep them in check.

North Korea is bluffing once again. Any country that wishes to announce to the world that it has nukes will detonate one during a test to leave no doubt. They blackmailed Bill Clinton with tough words, but they don't intimidate the current administration. Besides, there were declassified documents from the Clinton days that revealed we would have nuked North Korea had they attacked its neighbors. The declassification was done purposefully -- to remind North Korea not to try anything stupid.

[koolking1]

If we were to use tactical nuclear strikes to take out Iran's nuclear sites we would be facing their entire Army, real quick-like, heading into Iraq. It would be a bloodbath for both sides. They would lose but, oh my, what a cost.

Those pesky North Korean bluffs, hmmm, wonder why we are re-positioning to much further south of the DMZ, any ideas?

$100 says there will be a draft by the end of 2005, if not much sooner as I suspect. March tends to be a cold nasty month. Watcha wanna do?

I take it you are a big Bush supporter, there's nothing wrong with that, if you join up soon that is.

[DrSmellThis]

It's not about whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf of my country.Fascinating, unquestioning nationalistic belief; worthy of further contemplation.

[Biohazard]

If we were to use tactical nuclear strikes to take out Iran's nuclear sites we would be facing their entire Army, real quick-like, heading into Iraq. It would be a bloodbath for both sides. They would lose but, oh my, what a cost.

Those pesky North Korean bluffs, hmmm, wonder why we are re-positioning to much further south of the DMZ, any ideas?

$100 says there will be a draft by the end of 2005, if not much sooner as I suspect. March tends to be a cold nasty month. Watcha wanna do?

I take it you are a big Bush supporter, there's nothing wrong with that, if you join up soon that is.

It would be a tactical air strike on Iranian facilities using standard munitions, not nukes. There's already unmanned aerial surveillance over Iran to search for targets and collect air samples to detect "nukular" activity. Would Iran step it up a notch and invade another predominantly Muslim nation to retaliate? End up killing a lot of Muslims as collateral, and still be able to claim to the Muslim world that it was acting to defend itself? Interesting question with lots of diplomatic consequences for Iran. Also, while they're busy sending their army across the border to fight Americans, would they be toppled by opposition forces from within?

The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of range of first strike mortar fire. But any invasion of the South by the North will result in a huge mushroom cloud over Pyongyang within 48 hours. It would be over before we even need a draft. Their "bluff" is that they claim to have nukes. Their poker face isn't very good.

I am a Bush supporter in that the alternative doesn't represent a position that is acceptable to me. But I'm certainly no Greenpeace-looking yuppy liberal either if you were curious. ;)

I am quoting your $100 bet because I will take you up on that. Seriously. I have a Paypal account you can send money to by the end of the year. :D

[koolking1]

Should you win I will send to your paypal account (I have one myself) $100 on Jan 1st 2006. Should I win you will pay me right away? I mention this just so we are firm on the rules of this bet.

I am not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. I would like to see the authoritarian rulers in Iran toppled. I do not think that the internal resistance there is of much consequence. I would like to see the North Korean peasants freed as well.

Let me get this straight, you are saying we won't nuke the Iranians but we will nuke the North Koreans? Could you elaborate on why that is so? Is there some fine line in place that differentiates the two. Yes, I know you said we would not use nukes to destroy their nuclear facilities but what about the next day when the entire Iranian Armed Forces head towards and into Iraq? Actually, this would be just one more good enough reason to get our troops out of Iraq within the next 30-60 days.

If we do attack Iran, my own feeling is that whatever internal resistance existing there will change their views dramatically once we attack and rally to the "national cause" to repel the so-called "Great Satan". One only has to look to Iraq where the vast majority there want us out and out soon. The Shia majority won the so-called free election there. Don't you think they will be turning to Iran now? How do you think the Shia are going to react when we tell them that Allawi is going to remain in charge anyways?

[Biohazard]

Koolking, we're on. $100 via Paypal on Jan 1st, 2006. I'm going to make sure this account is linked to my current email so that I can be reached in case I owe you money.

A plan to nuke North Korea was in the works during the Clinton days -- it was declassified last year to remind them what awaits if they step beyond their borders. The use of nukes is NOT a first strike option. It would only be used to defend North Korea's neighbors. This is the only way we could ever justify using nukes. I'm not sure if Iran would step it up in retaliation to a single attack on their facilities and throw a crutch into the recovery of another mostly Muslim nation in Iraq. I'll reiterate that Iran has to contemplate the killing of a lot of Muslim civilians in the process of invading Iraq to kill Americans just because they lost a building. You think the Iraqi civilians will welcome Iranians waltzing throught their neighborhoods after all they've endured already in the past two years? Besides, there is a lot of open desert the Iranian soldiers have to travel after they cross in to Iraq. Open desert = field day for American air power. All we'd need to do is drop a MOAB on a few thousand of their soldiers hiking out in the open and they'll be scurrying in the opposite direction.

I am worried about the Shia rule in Iraq, but apparently they've assured everyone they're not like the Iranians seeing as how Iraq is more ethnically diverse and a theocracy would cause more problems than it's worth. The new Iraqi government will not have a "Supreme Leader," although there will be an important role for Islamic customs just as Christian customs have played a major part in domestic laws of the United States. They'll have some type of a parliament that's analagous to the U.S. congress, which does present at least some semblance of power balance unlike Iran. Let's not jump to conclusions about how it'll turn out, good or bad.

[DAdams91982]

Hahaha.. I love these conversations... Your just blatenly dumb if you think there is going to be a draft (No offense of course). Bottom line is it is not going to happen, and that statement is so obsurd that Im not even going to qualify my comment about it.

SrA Adams

[belgareth]

I'm curious why it's so dumb, other than your opinion? Isn't it a numbers situation? The pros in the military are very good at what they do but can they handle all the potential fronts? If not, where will the manpower come from? Technology helps a lot but somebody has to be there to run the equipment too, don't they?

Personally, I don't claim to know either way but am willing to learn. If you can explain I would appreciate it.

[koolking1]

Well, time will tell. I do appreciate your thoughtful analysis and am glad to see the meaningful and rancor-less dialogue. You may have guessed that I personnaly do want a return to the draft as well as thinking it may happen. I write to my Congressman about this from time to time and also keep up with Rep. Rangel's (and others) ideas about this issue. I really did get the feeling from watching Bush's Inaugural speech that he has something in mind for our younger folks. At any rate, I am good for the money in this wager.

Adams, you can call me dumb all you want - coming from you I take it as a compliment. So, thanks!!!!

[DrSmellThis]

George Bush has said he is not planning a draft, and that we're not going to attack Iran, N. Korea, Syria or any other countries, other than our own. I for one absolutely believe him. :rant:

[DumLuc]

The guy is a Texan, a Skull and Boner, and was raised by an Illuminate;why would he not tell us anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; so help him God.

[belgareth]

What does being a Texan have to do with it? The others I can figure out but the negative comment about (us) Texans is rather offensive.

[DumLuc]

Come on now, Tex, you must know that present company is excepted. Besides it was either that or the fact that he was a Republican and I figured that anyTexan would be big enough to take a good natured jibe and I know a Republican wouldn't.

[belgareth]

:) I'm actually a transplanted Texan but feel that it beats the devil out of anywhere else I've lived.

I don't know about the republicans not taking a jab well either. After living in many parts of the country and knowing a lot of democratss, green party'ers, republicans and so on I have to conclude that they are all about the same in their ability to laugh at themselves or take being laughed at. If I had to pick a stiff necked group it certanly wouldn't be the republicans or any other purely political group, for that matter. I've offended my fair share of liberals over the years. A few times I've even managed to offend both parties simultaneously. It made me grin for weeks afterwards just thinking about it.

[Holmes]

I'll bet anyone here that there may or may not be a draft.

Who's on?

[koolking1]

of course, I am!!! I need to find some sucker to bet me $100 that there will be a draft.

[DrSmellThis]

I'll bet anyone here that there may or may not be a draft.

Who's on?:lol: ..........

[Felstorm]

the rhetoric is ratching up - Iran and North Korea in the gunsights. Is the draft coming soon to you?
Having been in the military within the last administration, I wouldn't be too surprised if it does happen.

People that say that a draft will absolutley not happen, are deluding themselves. When I was in for Basic at Ft.Knox they were gearing up to take on 3 more training companies. In fact I helped clean out the Cold WAr era barracks to make way for new bunks, wall lockers, and training equipment. The Army doesn't do this unless they are going to be training privates in those buildings. Thomas White came and inspected those buildings that I cleaned out, and shook my hand and congratulated me and my platoon on how good of a job we did in preparing those training barracks.

I was told by Col. Ballantyne that there were 'contingency' plans to instate an overnight draft and get 100 thousand new footsloggers on the field within three months should Iran or N.K. get uppity and do something stupid.

There were also unconfirmed rumors that Thomas White proposed a bill that would force all graduating teenagers to a mandatory two-years of military service. At the same time I was told by my Sergeant Major that the President would be instituting a "stop-loss" order when we we invaded Iraq. All of which In learned when we were still bombing civilians and Taliban in Afghanistan.

So far, the invasion of Iraq, and the 'stop-loss' order have happened. So I wouldn't be too damn surprised to find out that 18-30yo's get the Selective Service call-up in the near future. Hell I wouldn't be surprised to find myself sitting in sunny Fallujah in the next few months.

And as an aside...

I find that draft dodgers and would-be draft dodgers are hypocrits. They enjoy all the priviledges of what the soldier class has provided to them, yet refuse to serve so their cushy way of life can continue.

For every draft dodging tree-hugging dope-addled hippy, there was a man that sacrificed his life to ensure that punk could smoke his dope, spout his stupidity, and zone out on his boob-tube.

That's not to say I haven't smoked pot, hugged a tree, spouted stupidity, or zoned out to a boob-tube. But I'm willing to lay down my life so this severly screwed-up country can exist for others to straighten out, and then promptly screw up all over again.

Freedom and liberty come at a cost, sometimes a terrible one. There is no 'just' war, there is only war. War is about survival of your ideology, your way of life, your community, and ultimately your DNA. There will always be a battlefeild. Those that refuse to participate in the survival of the very way of life that allowed them that freedom of thought and voice are, in my opinion, some very sad, scared, and unhealthy human animals.

[koolking1]

my source of information that leads me to believe a draft will be coming is within the military. The only other explanation I can divine for this rumor would be wishful thinking or a morale-booster rumor circulating amongst Reserve and Guard troops who need a break.

Scott Ritter is claiming a Jun 2005 attack on Iran has been bought off on by Pres Bush (Ritter has been right in the past and has a lot of credibility). Jun 2005 also coincides with Iran's planned Coup d Etat of the oil industry and choice of world currency (Euro instead of Dollar).

Iran is not going to sit still while we destroy their nuclear facilities - ground troops (and lots of them) will likely be needed. "the Iraq dilemna may be looked at in the future as a minor happening in the overall greater war".

[koolking1]

Army Having Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting
Fewer Enlistees Are in Pipeline; Many Being Rushed Into Service

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 21, 2005; Page A01

The active-duty Army is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those that have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength, according to Army figures and interviews with senior officers .

For the first time since 2001, the Army began the fiscal year in October with only 18.4 percent of the year's target of 80,000 active-duty recruits already in the pipeline. That amounts to less than half of last year's figure and falls well below the Army's goal of 25 percent.

Meanwhile, the Army is rushing incoming recruits into training as quickly as it can. Compared with last year, it has cut by 50 percent the average number of days between the time a recruit signs up and enters boot camp. It is adding more than 800 active-duty recruiters to the 5,201 who were on the job last year, as attracting each enlistee requires more effort and monetary incentives.

Driving the manpower crunch is the Army's goal of boosting the number of combat brigades needed to rotate into Iraq and handle other global contingencies. Yet Army officials see worrisome signs that young American men and women -- and their parents -- are growing wary of military service, largely because of the Iraq conflict.

"Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief. "We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for '05 it's going to be tough to meet our goal, but I think we can. I think the telling year for us is going to be '06."

Other senior military officers have voiced similar concerns in recent days. "I anticipate that fiscal year '05 will be very challenging for both active and reserve component recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 17. The Marine Corps fell short of its monthly recruiting quota in January for the first time in nearly a decade.

Because the Army is the main U.S. military ground force, its ability to draw recruits is critical to the nation's preparedness to fight current and future wars. The Army can sustain its ranks through retaining more experienced soldiers -- and indeed retention in 2004 was 107 percent -- but if too few young recruits sign up, the force will begin to age. Moreover, higher retention in the active-duty Army translates into a dwindling stream of recruits for the already troubled Army Guard and Reserve.

Army officials say the challenge is not yet a crisis. As of Jan. 31, the Army tallied 22,246 active-duty recruits for fiscal 2005, exceeding the year-to-date mission by more than 100.

Still, the recruiting difficulties reflect unprecedented demands on today's soldiers that are unlikely to let up soon. Never before has the all-volunteer Army deployed to war zones in such large numbers for multiple, yearlong tours. It is doing so with a total force cut by 300,000 troops -- from 28 active-duty and reserve divisions to 18 -- since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The Army is now working to add 30,000 soldiers by 2009, expanding the active-duty force from 482,000 to 512,000, as it builds 10 to 15 new combat brigades to add to divisions for overseas tours. But cultivating so many fresh recruits without lowering standards is a serious challenge, senior Army leaders say. "If you cut down 300,000 trees, you can do that pretty quick, but now grow 30,000 of them back," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, told a House Armed Services committee hearing Feb. 9. "It takes time, as you know, to grow the quality soldier."

Time, however, is what the Army lacks.

Beyond replacing normal turnover each year, officials say the Army must accelerate recruitment to meet an aggressive timeline for filling out the new brigades of 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers each, as well as to expand and reorganize the 33 existing brigades.

Newly trained troops are essentially being rationed out -- a process Army officers call "turning on the faucet" -- a few months before the brigades are to deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. The military plans to keep about 120,000 troops in Iraq through 2006.

"The priority fill goes to deploying units to make sure they are at full strength before they go overseas," says Col. Joseph Anderson, who until this month served as chief of staff of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky.

Such demands have led the Army to deplete its reservoir of enlistees in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). The DEP consists of people who have signed enlistment contracts but opt to delay their entry to training camps for up to a year. DEP numbers fell from 33,249 at the beginning of fiscal 2004 to 14,739 at the start of this fiscal year, according to U.S. Army Recruiting Command statistics.

As a result, while the Army began last year with 45.9 percent of its recruiting goal filled by the pool, this year it started with just 18.4 percent in the pool -- the lowest amount since 2001 and well below the 30 percent average for the past decade. That means the Army must redouble its efforts to meet this year's target.

"Would we like a deeper DEP, a greater number? Of course we would," Hagenbeck said. But despite his anticipation of an even tougher recruiting environment in 2006 -- resulting from an improving economy and public uncertainty over the Iraq war -- he said the overriding need to hasten recruits to units means there are no plans to replenish the DEP this year.

Meanwhile, netting each new recruit is proving more difficult and time-consuming, Hagenbeck said, requiring the Army to put hundreds more active-duty recruiters on the job.

"The youngsters that are joining us are spending more time with the recruiters before they raise their right hand," he said. Today, most prospective enlistees contact the Army via the Internet, he said, asking numerous questions that require more recruiters to answer online and follow up with phone calls.

But few candidates will join up before meeting a recruiter in person and spending significant amounts of time with one, he said. "They ultimately want to see a soldier, a recruiter, and talk to them eyeball to eyeball," he said. As a result, "the recruiter who could go out and recruit two people this week might be consumed with recruiting that one."

The average cost of signing up a recruit is also beginning to rise, from $15,265 in fiscal 2001 to $15,967 in fiscal 2004 -- the result of more recruiters, advertising, and increased enlistment bonuses. In January, the Army announced a new six-month advertising contract with Leo Burnett USA worth an estimated $100 million. The Army is offering bonuses of as much as $20,000 to enlist on active duty for four years, with special monetary incentives for candidates who have college degrees, sign up for high-priority jobs or agree to move quickly into training.

The Army is also paying more to retain active-duty soldiers, 50 percent of whom now receive reenlistment bonuses, compared with 39 percent in 2003, Army officials said.

"We may not get exactly the number of people we want, but we're not sacrificing quality," Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told a House committee Feb. 9.

The Army is offering higher ranks to enlistees who have spent time in college or junior ROTC, and as a result is bringing in more recruits at ranks above private, or E-1.

Such policies could partly explain a shift in the Army's junior enlisted ranks that has perplexed military analysts. The number of privates (E-1 through E-3) in the active-duty Army has sharply declined from 126,100 in October 2001 to 107,500 in December 2004. Meanwhile, the number of corporals and specialists (E-4) has risen from 95,400 to 115,500.

Another explanation is that the active-duty Army is maintaining its force strength more through retention than recruitment, resulting in a subtle aging of the force -- a trend already evident in the Army Reserve, officials said.

[DrSmellThis]

For the Few and the Proud, Concern Over the 'Few' Part
By Eric Schmitt / New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25marine.html?)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 - The Iraq war's dampening effect on recruiting has led to a plan by the Marine Corps to put hundreds of additional recruiters on the streets over the next several months and offer new re-enlistment bonuses of up to $35,000, military officials said Thursday.

Recruiters and other military officials say the "Falluja effect" - a steady drumbeat of military casualties from Iraq, punctuated by graphic televised images of urban combat - is searing an image into the public eye that Marine officers say is difficult to overcome.

The Marines make up about 21 percent of the 150,000 military personnel in Iraq now but have suffered 31 percent of the military deaths there, according to Pentagon statistics.

The Army and other services have often increased the number of recruiters and dangled incentives to bolster their enlistment efforts in lean years. But for the Marines, steps of this magnitude, including the largest one-time increase in recruiters in recent memory, are unheard of in a service whose macho image has historically been a magnet for young people seeking adventure and danger in a military career.

Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the Marine Corps commandant, predicted on Thursday that the Marines would achieve their overall recruiting goal for this fiscal year, even after the service missed its monthly quota in January, the first such lapse in nearly a decade. But General Hagee indicated that recruiters were facing some of toughest conditions they have ever faced, starting in the homes of their prized recruits.

"What the recruiters are telling us is that they have to spend more time with the parents," General Hagee said. "Parents have influence, and rightly so, on the decision these young men and young women are going to make. They're saying, 'It's not maybe a bad idea to join the Marine Corps, but why don't you consider it a year from now, or two years from now; let's think about this.' "

At issue is the Marines' decision to rebuild its recruiting ranks, which had fallen recently to 2,410 full-time recruiters from 2,650 before the Iraq war, as commanders siphoned off marines who had been scheduled for recruiting duty to perform combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The recruiting force atrophied," said Maj. David M. Griesmer, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command. "Now we need to get back up to where we need to be." Major Griesmer said the Marines would add nearly 250 recruiters between now and October 2006.

General Hagee said, "We are putting more recruiters out there on the street."

In a reflection of the difficult market for Marine recruiters, the service offers bonuses of up to $35,000 to retain combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is unusual about these incentives is that the Marines Corps for the first time is offering re-enlistment bonuses, averaging $20,000, to its most junior infantrymen, rather than relying mainly on inexperienced troops fresh from boot camp to replenish the infantry. About 75 percent of enlisted marines leave the service after their first tour, requiring a steady stream of recruits moving through training centers in San Diego and Parris Island, S.C.

"We need infantrymen," General Hagee said, explaining the shift in bonus priorities. "That's what we're using over there on the ground."

General Hagee said the initial wave of bonuses had increased re-enlistment rates among infantry units, but Marine officials said they did not have specific figures readily available.

The Marines' decision to strengthen recruiting comes as the Army has added hundreds of new recruiters and is pushing incoming recruits into training as fast as possible.

In a wide-ranging breakfast interview with reporters, General Hagee touched on several issues regarding Iraq that military specialists say contribute to the climate of concern among potential recruits and their parents.

General Hagee said the military had an all-out effort under way to combat the remotely detonated roadside bombs that are the No. 1 killer of American troops in Iraq. The Marines, he said, are using a sophisticated computer program to help identify potential vulnerabilities of supply convoys protected by electronic jamming devices.

When it comes to recruiting, the traditional enticements of military service, like travel, education benefits and the Marine Corps mystique, now must vie with the concerns of recruits and their parents, recruiters say.

"The parents have always been the challenge," said Gunnery Sgt. Larry Pyles, who has been a recruiter for five years in the DuPage South office in Naperville, Ill.

[DrSmellThis]

If Bush can drum up support in the GOP power base for attacking Iran, Syria and/or N. Korea as he wants to; and we cannot withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan (Why does no one mention Afghanistan any more?); there will be a draft. This is not rocket science. It is the fundamental project of neocons.

I'm fairly certain the Bush administration is timing the inevitable escalation of their aggressive rhetoric and stance toward Iran and Syria, to allow for more human resources to be freed up from current engagements, if possible. They also have to time it to account for pushing through and implementing a draft. I do know contingency plans are already well in place for an emergency draft. This raises the possiblity of allowing another terrorist attack to happen at home (remember the 52 warnings, "My Pet Goat", Richard Clarke, the PNAC wish for another Pearl Harbor; and failure to scramble planes despite plenty of awareness and time?), to ensure the necessary support and human resources will be available.

If redirecting human resources from Iraq and Afghanistan is impossible; and yet they are still able to control mainstream media and the press as they have, they will probably be able to tell enough lies and evoke enough terror at home to convince people to go along with expanding the "war against terrorism." (Anybody heard from Bin Laden lately? I heard he's a "three handicap" now!). A draft would be forthcoming.

Otherwise, no one knows; and I doubt the decision has been made.

Implementing a draft would have political costs for Republicans, since that brings war home to citizens regardless of political bent (There is a political bias toward the right in soldier families which would be nullified if families weren't volunteers). If there is a draft, the level of protest will be comparable to the 1960's. Some will arm themselves in rebellion, just like then (then Patty Hearst will have something to do again).

It takes balls to bet on this either way. I don't know if this whole process can play itself out in a year.

[koolking1]

I want the draft back. I knew back in the 80s that the military was slipping into something I wanted no part of and it's because we don't have many people there anymore with a sense of morality.

from EASTBAYEXPRESS.com

"News
War Pornography
Gore-for-porn swap by US soldiers in Iraq makes Abu Ghraib look like kid stuff.
By Chris Thompson

Published: Wednesday, September 21, 2005


NowThatsFuckedUp.com




Who / What:
NowThatsFuckedUp.com


The War Pornographers


Printer friendly version of this story
Email Chris Thompson
More stories by Chris Thompson
Send a letter to the editor
Send this story to a friend



Feature
Fishin' for Evildoers
All aboard the August Vollmer, Alameda County's terror-fightin' gunboat.

Bottom Feeder
Condé Nasty
Construction-happy Wired magnates feud with NIMBY neighborhood -- again. Oops! Dellums might just run after all, but rival Nacho wants that church vote.

City of Warts
A Nation's Forgotten Suffering
Haiti sets the standard for misery, and yet, save one Oakland journalist, US media don't consider its pain and mayhem terribly newsworthy.

Cityside
When Silence Equals Death
Hybrid vehicles are good for the planet, but bad news for the visually impaired. What's a well-meaning lefty to do?

Letters
Letters for the week of September 21-27, 2005
Git yer frankin' facts straight! We don't even have a water cooler. And whatever does Chris Thompson expect he's going to accomplish?



If you want to see the true face of war, go to the amateur porn Web site NowThatsFuckedUp.com. For almost a year, American soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been taking photographs of dead bodies, many of them horribly mutilated or blown to pieces, and sending them to Web site administrator Chris Wilson. In return for letting him post these images, Wilson gives the soldiers free access to his site. American soldiers have been using the pictures of disfigured Iraqi corpses as currency to buy pornography.
At Wilson's Web site, you can see an Arab man's face sliced off and placed in a bowl filled with blood. Another man's head, his face crusted with dried blood and powder burns, lies on a bed of gravel. A man in a leather coat who apparently tried to run a military checkpoint lies slumped in the driver's seat of a car, his head obliterated by gunfire, the flaps of skin from his neck blooming open like rose petals. Six men in beige fatigues, identified as US Marines, laugh and smile for the camera while pointing at a burned, charcoal-black corpse lying at their feet.

The captions that accompany these images, which were apparently written by the soldiers who posted them, laugh and gloat over the bodies. The soldier who posted a picture of a corpse lying in a pool of his own brains and entrails wrote, "What every Iraqi should look like." The photograph of a corpse whose jaw has apparently rotted away, leaving a gaping set of upper teeth, bears the caption: "bad day for this dude." One soldier posted three photographs of corpses lying in the street and titled his collection, "die haji die." The soldiers take pride, even joy, in displaying the dead.

This is a moral catastrophe. The Bush administration claims such sympathy for American war dead that officials have banned the media from photographing flag-draped coffins being carried off cargo planes. Government officials and American media officials have repeatedly denounced the al-Jazeera network for airing grisly footage of Iraqi war casualties and American prisoners of war. The legal fight over whether to release the remaining photographs of atrocities at Abu Ghraib has dragged on for months, with no less a figure than Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers arguing that the release of such images will inflame the Muslim world and drive untold numbers to join al-Qaeda. But none of these can compare to the prospect of American troops casually bartering pictures of suffering and death for porn.

"Two years ago, if somebody had said our soldiers would do these things to detainees and take pictures of it, I would have said that's a lie," sighed the recently retired General Michael Marchand – who as Assistant Judge Advocate General for the Army was responsible for reforming military training policy to make sure nothing like Abu Ghraib ever happens again. "What soldiers do, I'm not sure I can guess anymore."

But for Chris Wilson, it's all in a day's work. "It's an unedited look at the war from their point of view," he says of the soldiers who contribute the images. "There's always going to be a slant from the news media. ... And this is a photo that comes straight from their camera to the site. To me, it's just a more real look at what's going on."

Wilson, a 27-year-old Web entrepreneur living in Florida, created the Web site a year ago, asked fans to contribute pictures of their wives and girlfriends, and posted footage and photographs bearing titles such as "wife working cock" and "ass fucking my wife on the stairs." The site was a big hit with soldiers stationed overseas; about a third of his customers, or more than fifty thousand people, work in the military. Wilson says he started getting e-mail from soldiers thanking him for keeping up their morale and "bringing a little piece of the States to them." But other soldiers complained that they had problems buying memberships to his service. "They wanted to join the site, the amateur wife and girlfriend site," he says. "But they couldn't, because the addresses associated with their credit cards were Quackistan or something, they were in such a high-risk country, that the credit card companies wouldn't approve the purchase."

That's when Wilson hit upon the idea of offering free memberships to soldiers. All they had to do was send a picture of life in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they'd get all the free porn they wanted. All sorts of images began appearing over the transom, but he dedicated a special site to view the most "gory" pictures. Asked what he feels upon viewing a new crop, Wilson says: "Personally, I don't look at it one way or another. It's newsworthy, and people can form their own opinions."

Wilson's Web site has made the news before – but not for posting pictures of murdered human beings. Last October, the New York Post reported that the Pentagon was investigating Wilson for posting naked pictures of female soldiers in Iraq. After a few months, the Post reported that the Pentagon had blocked soldiers in Iraq from accessing the Web site, which had posted five more pictures of nude female soldiers, some of whom had posed with machine guns and grenades. After the Post's stories, Wilson says, he was bombarded with requests for interviews from newspapers and radio stations. Even after he started posting photographs of corpses late last year, media inquiries focused exclusively on his nudie pics. It wasn't until reporters from the European press contacted him last week that anyone took notice of Wilson's snuff-for-porn arrangement with American troops.

"The soldiers thing, I think the Italians picked it up first," Wilson says. "I've done interviews with the Italians, the French, Amsterdam. ... They were very critical, saying the US wouldn't pick it up, because it's such a sore spot. ... It raises too many ethical questions. ... I started to laugh, because it's true."

According to Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Chris Conway, Pentagon policy may be ambivalent when it comes to soldiers posting pictures of mutilated war victims. "There are policies in place that, on the one hand, safeguard sensitive and classified information, and on the other hand protects the First Amendment rights of servicemembers," he says, adding that field commanders may issue additional directives. "In plain English, if you're on the job working for the Department of Defense, you shouldn't be freelancing. You should be doing your duty."

If American soldiers are always considered representatives of their government while in the field, international law clearly prohibits publishing and ridiculing images of war dead. The First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions states that "the remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities ... shall be respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained, and marked." The first Geneva Convention also requires that military personnel "shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites off the religion to which they belonged."

Nothing about this appalling trade could begin to be called "honorable." This latest scandal doesn't just demean the bodies of the dead – it demeans us all, in ways we won't begin to understand for years. One of the pictures on Wilson's site depicts a woman whose right leg has been torn off by a land mine, and a medical worker is holding the mangled stump up to the camera. The woman's vagina is visible under the hem of her skirt. The caption for this picture reads: "Nice puss – bad foot."

We have decided to make available six of the photos originally posted on NowThatsFuckedUp.com, along with the soldiers' original subject headings. This decision to repost them was not made lightly, but we concluded that the graphic nature of the photos, juxtaposed with their flippant treatment by members of the US military, is newsworthy as a statement on US military culture. WARNING: These are brutally graphic war images that many readers will find disturbing. They should NOT be viewed by children or the faint of heart. With that disclaimer, you will find them here. Click on the small photos to view the larger photos with captions. "

[Biohazard]

I want the draft back. I knew back in the 80s that the military was slipping into something I wanted no part of and it's because we don't have many people there anymore with a sense of morality.



Nice to see you're still around Koolking and haven't forgot about our bet. "Slipping?" Look at any army and you'll find immature members not acting honorably. Americans have done bad things to enemy bodies in every war going all the way back to pre-independence days. Ever hear of scalping Native Indians in the 1700s? Removal of gold teeth from the Japanese in WWII? The worst was probably in Vietnam, and a large part of it was low morale among the servicemen due to being drafted. Therefore, I cannot see why you would want a draft.

You're a doomsday monger. And you have delusions of how the world really works. Get ready to send me $100 in about 3 months. ;)

[DrSmellThis]

I'm also confused about how the world really works. I can't even figure out why all those people are dying over in Iraq, why Iraqis are our enemies; or whether our all-volunteer military has a high morale.

[koolking1]

laughing here, in addition to this bet I also occasionally bet college football, notably Florida State. When I win I graciously accept the money from whomever I've made the bet while making a comment such as "hey, it could have easily gone the other way" or when I lose, I hand over the cash and whoever gets it says something like, "hey, thanks, it could have easily gone the other way". We keep it gentlemanly.

"You're a doomsday monger".

Hardly. My belief is that if we all try hard we can make this world a better place. Your belief seems to be that since war crimes have been committed in the past that we should expect and, most sadly mirroring your personality, accept their happening again and again.

"And you have delusions of how the world really works."

You'll have to explain how that is? Expatiate please.

"Get ready to send me $100 in about 3 months."

I don't think so. It's put up or shut up now that you've pissed me off. Will one of the forum members please volunteer to accept my $100 and Biohazards $100 to later disburse to the winner within a week of Jan 1st, 2006? If someone is nice enough to do this, I'll add an extra $25 so they can have a nice meal on me. Thanks in advance. Biohazard, you might be so generous yourself although it's certainly not required.

"Nice to see you're still around Koolking and haven't forgot about our bet."

I don't like your implication. Most people on this board know that I have been and will likely continue to be "around". I also know that my chances of winning are dwindling as the months quickly go by and actually getting the money out now works to my benefit and yours as I'm leaving on Jan 8th for a 4 month trek around the world (sure hope my being delusional doesn't impact my trip!!!).

Good Luck to you.

[Sigma]

What does being a Texan have to do with it? The others I can figure out but the negative comment about (us) Texans is rather offensive.

Agreed. Texas is one of the most ethnically diverse states in the US. Why people are so caught up in this gung-ho, country cowboy stereotype is beyond me.

[Biohazard]

laughing here, in addition to this bet I also occasionally bet college football, notably Florida State. When I win I graciously accept the money from whomever I've made the bet while making a comment such as "hey, it could have easily gone the other way" or when I lose, I hand over the cash and whoever gets it says something like, "hey, thanks, it could have easily gone the other way". We keep it gentlemanly.

"You're a doomsday monger".

Hardly. My belief is that if we all try hard we can make this world a better place. Your belief seems to be that since war crimes have been committed in the past that we should expect and, most sadly mirroring your personality, accept their happening again and again.

"And you have delusions of how the world really works."

You'll have to explain how that is? Expatiate please.

"Get ready to send me $100 in about 3 months."

I don't think so. It's put up or shut up now that you've pissed me off. Will one of the forum members please volunteer to accept my $100 and Biohazards $100 to later disburse to the winner within a week of Jan 1st, 2006? If someone is nice enough to do this, I'll add an extra $25 so they can have a nice meal on me. Thanks in advance. Biohazard, you might be so generous yourself although it's certainly not required.

"Nice to see you're still around Koolking and haven't forgot about our bet."

I don't like your implication. Most people on this board know that I have been and will likely continue to be "around". I also know that my chances of winning are dwindling as the months quickly go by and actually getting the money out now works to my benefit and yours as I'm leaving on Jan 8th for a 4 month trek around the world (sure hope my being delusional doesn't impact my trip!!!).

Good Luck to you.

I had hoped my little emoticon at the end of my post signified that I was simply giving a little good natured ribbing. I know we haven't posted in a while (I was only alerted by email when this topic was updated), but my impression was that this was a friendly bet and that no one was taking politics all too seriously. I didn't know you had an emotional involvement, so I apologize if a nerve was hit. I know we're discussing a topic where people are dying, but still I thought most of this dialogue was tongue in cheek. People joke about war all the time on the late night shows.

When I mentioned "delusional," I meant retrospectively it appears you believe that the military has been better (on a moral level) in the past, claiming that in the 1980s the military was headed somewhere where it hasn't been before in the past. All I did was rebut your statement with a little reality about what the past entailed. No, we should not accept these atrocities as "boys being boys," but the reality is that humans are by nature that way and there will always be the very few who will behave as such, draft or no draft. I just happen to believe that it occurs less now, because in the past, many draftees do not wish to be fighting and therefore do not hold themselves to the highest expectations of military honor.

Wanting a draft to come back is indeed being a "doomsday monger." Why would you want a draft back, knowing how much chaos it would cause in American society? Remember the resistance during Vietnam? Why would you want that to occur? That was what boggled me and you still haven't offered an explanation for that statement.

I have no problem upping the ante to $125 to send to a third party to mediate our bet. But I do not see the necessity since I do not believe that there is any real friction between us, other than a little misunderstanding of intent.

[belgareth]

Agreed. Texas is one of the most ethnically diverse states in the US. Why people are so caught up in this gung-ho, country cowboy stereotype is beyond me.

Moving to Texas was quite a cultural shock for me after living in ultra-liberal, open-minded California for so many years. For all the high minded idealistic noises they made in California I see less bigotry, both overt and covert, and far greater diversity here than I ever saw in California. The majority here just don't care what color you are, they have a much greater live and let live attitude. In my own opinion it is a result of not having equality shoved down their throats. There's no resentment built up here over it. People in California seemed to be so busy proving they didn't care that they never had time to actually made the time to get to know those other kinds of people.

[belgareth]

I think Koolking is right though that we need a draft.

[koolking1]

"No. Our all-volunteer armed forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft. It's not about whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf of my country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

You were called upon. President Bush and others have spoken often about the need for our young people to step up and defend their country. Are you now in the military?

I could have taken you to task to explain what I find is a lack of accurate historical information but will just ask that you explain this statement (for the moment, I may have more questions later).

here's what I want to you to explain please:

"The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of range of first strike mortar fire."

Now, you may be wondering, why ask that. Well, it's because it's a very definitive statement on your part and I'd like to get some background on it, I really am curious.

[Biohazard]

"No. Our all-volunteer armed forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft. It's not about whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf of my country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

You were called upon. President Bush and others have spoken often about the need for our young people to step up and defend their country. Are you now in the military?



No, I am not in the military as I mentioned in my first post here. Although I have considered the route my brother has taken when I am done with my current work. He is applying his engineering skills to the design of weapons systems for the Air Force. With my particular skills, I'd guess I'd be working in biological/chemical research as an officer. Right now I think I'm doing good by working in the civilian medical research sector.

My feelings have not changed. If situations were grave enough whereby a draft is indeed needed -- which is not at the current momemt, although you disagree -- and I am selected, I would not resist.



"The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of range of first strike mortar fire."

Now, you may be wondering, why ask that. Well, it's because it's a very definitive statement on your part and I'd like to get some background on it, I really am curious.

North Korea has not been bashful about "re-uniting" the Korean people under communist rule. Any action in the Korean peninsula would be initiated by a first strike by the North Koreans, which appeared more likely 7 months ago but not now. Having American ground personel survive the first encounter would be important in coordinating a counter-offensive. If a war did break out in Korea, it think it would still not require a draft. I think nukes would be dropped on NK and it would be over before it really even gets started.

I'd be happy to answer any more questions. This is an interesting discussion.

[koolking1]

October 4, 2005 latimes.com : National News Print E-mail story Most e-mailed Change text size

THE NATION
Army to Lower Bar for Recruits
By Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writer


"WASHINGTON — Facing recruiting shortages brought on by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has decided to accept a greater number of recruits who score near the bottom of military aptitude tests, the secretary of the Army said Monday.

Coming off a recruiting year in which the Army fell short of its goal of 80,000 active-duty soldiers, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey announced that the Army would allow up to 4% of its recruiting class to be Category IV recruits — those who scored between the 16th and 30th percentile in the battery of aptitude tests that the Defense Department gives to all potential military personnel.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Army until now allowed no more than 2% of its recruiting class to be from the Category IV level, fearing that letting too many low-achieving recruits into the Army might dilute the quality of the nation's largest military branch.

The continuing violence in Iraq has made the Army's annual mission to bolster its ranks especially difficult in recent months. The Army fell nearly 7,000 recruits short of its goal for the 2005 fiscal year, which ended Friday. Army officials have said that recruiters might be faced with an even bigger challenge during the current fiscal year.

Harvey insisted that the Army was not lowering its standards but merely conforming to Department of Defense guidelines that allow up to 4% of each military service's recruiting class to be Category IV troops.

Yet one Army official said that the policy change is also a concession to reality. The Army failed to meet its benchmark for 2005, and decided to widen the pool of recruits it could target during the 2006 fiscal year. The Army official spoke on condition of anonymity because the 2005 recruiting figures would not be formally announced until next week.

Before being admitted into the military, a potential recruit takes a group of tests known as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. The recruits fall into categories based on their performance on the aptitude tests.

Harvey said he saw no reason why the Army standards should be more stringent than Pentagon guidelines, and pointed out that the Army already allows more Category IV troops to join the National Guard than it does the active duty ranks.

"We had sort of an artificial system. When I asked the question how we got there, I never got a straight answer," Harvey told reporters Monday. "They really weren't standards. They were just kind of guidelines," he said.

Harvey spoke to reporters during a convention of the Assn. of the U.S. Army, a private organization that supports active duty and reserve soldiers.

Harvey said the Army would also ease the service's requirement that at least 67% of every recruiting class be made up of recruits who scored in the top half (50th percentile or above) on the aptitude tests. The new threshold would be 60%, Harvey said, in accordance with Defense Department benchmarks.

The Pentagon benchmarks were established to prevent the military services from meeting recruiting quotas by accepting too many people with low IQs. Despite these parameters, the Pentagon allows each service, if it wishes, to set more rigorous standards.

Until the last fiscal year, the Army had few problems staying below the 2% threshold for Category IV recruits. According to data provided by the Army, Category IV recruits comprised less than 1% of the 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes.

The Army's recruiting problems have become more pressing as the violence in Iraq has intensified, scaring potential recruits away. Recruiters in 2005 accepted more individuals whom they might have rejected previously.

Harvey denied Monday that the Army was in the midst of a recruiting crisis, pointing to a series of new initiatives — including increasing the Army's advertising budget by $130 million and putting 3,000 more recruiters on the streets — that he hoped would reverse the downward trend."

Sounds to me like another call for you, BioHazard, to enlist!! Just joking.

[belgareth]

Aren't they called cannon fodder?

[Netghost56]

I scored a 207 on my ASVAB in 99. That's 66% academic, 97% verbal, and 45% math.

But in the military's eyes, I don't exist, so I'm not worried the least bit about a draft.

I do worry about my friends, and if I had siblings, I'd worry about them as well.

Three of my cousins have married military men, and they are haggard these days as their spouses are overseas. I don't think it's worth the hardship to go through that.

[Biohazard]

Sounds to me like another call for you, BioHazard, to enlist!! Just joking.

There's always been a call for a few good men to enlist in the military, since the founding of this country. Every president, from Washington to GWB, has felt that military service is an honorable career option for our nation's youth.

Falling short of recruiting goals doesn't mean a draft is coming. I doubt there is even one general who would welcome a draft, much less the rank and file soldiers who's backs should rightly be covered by someone who wants to be on the front lines. A draft would weaken the effectiveness of the armed forces IMO, and I do not see how that would improve the "morality" among the men and women who serve, as you seemed to have implied.

I think a large part of recruiting shortages is the result of selective negative reporting by the media. If 99.99% of the soldiers carry out their duties with honor, then 99.99% of the news stories should focus on the good work that is being done. I'm not saying that bad deeds ought to be covered up, but one must really question the sensationalist mentality of the media in what it chooses to focus on. Surely, one has plenty of material to use to bash the current administration without having to use our servicemen and women as tools for a political agenda.

Anyhow, have you decided to use a third party mediator to make the payout?

[Netghost56]

Media? Ok. I don't think billing the military as a great career move is right. The military is a tough job that requires you to go against what you believe. They don't show the killing in their recruitment commercials.

And I'm primarily against their recruitment tactics where they prey on the lower class people. Our military is turning into the French Foreign Legion.

[koolking1]

from the Army Times:

October 04, 2005

Senate gives nod to
recruiting older citizens

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer


Legislation allowing military recruits to enter service up to age 42 and to create a new $1,000 finder’s fee for service members who tip off recruiters to good prospects has received tentative approval in the Senate.
A package of 81 approved amendments to the 2006 defense authorization bill unveiled Monday includes a recruiting and retention plan, proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and prepared by the Army, that also:

• Raises the maximum enlistment bonus.

• Allows people with prior military service to get more than one bonus for joining the reserves.

• Increases the maximum bonus for officers joining the reserves.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman who submitted the package of approved amendments, said the 81 amendments in it represented those on which agreement had been reached between Democrats and Republicans during the two-month delay in work on the defense bill.

Warner said the package has amendments offered by 68 of the 100 senators, and that he and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, his committee’s ranking Democrat, would urge its adoption when the Senate gets back to work on the bill, which could be this week.

Raising enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses is the military’s traditional response to past problems in manning the force, but increasing the maximum recruiting age and paying a referral bonus are new ideas, both aimed at the Army and its recruiting difficulties.

The current age limit for active-duty recruits, 35, would increase to 42 for the all of the services.

The provision is not controversial because it is expected the military would use the new authority sparingly. The Army is the only service to express interest, and Army officials told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year that the new authority would be used only for a few critical specialties.

The finder’s fee idea, however, does come with some controversy. Under the proposal, a member of the Army, Army Reserve or Army National Guard could receive a $1,000 bonus for referring a person who has never served in the armed forces to a recruiter.

For the finder to get the fee, the potential recruit would have to enlist in the Army, Army Reserve or Army National Guard and finish basic and advanced training. No payments would be given for referring an immediate family member, and anyone in a recruiting or career counselor assignment would be ineligible.

McCain’s proposal limits the number of bonuses to 1,000 as an initial test and would cancel the program on Jan. 1, 2008.

Army officials have talked about wanting to offer bonuses of up to $2,500 and another new enlistment incentive of up to $25,000 that could be used as a down payment on the purchase of a home. "

are nursing homes next stop for recruiters?

BioHazard, I'll be replying to you shortly.

Alas, no one here has stepped up to the plate to hold the dough so it's back to plan A. One of us pays up on the 1st of Jan 2005. However, should I lose and I'll be confident that I've lost if nothing happens prior to Dec 25th, I'll get the cash out to you then as I will have a lot to do shortly after that.

[Biohazard]

Koolking, I don't see how opening the recruitment requirements suggests that we are heading towards a draft. One thing you have overlooked is the long-term political agenda of the Bush administration. They are establishing dominance of the Republican party for generations to come. Bush has appointed Hispanics to positions of power, he's kissing Vincente Fox's ass, not touching the illegal immigration issue, making deeper inroads with Black churches, and has appointed "stealth" conservatives (one a woman) to the Supreme Court in order to appear more bipartisan. I see Republicans gaining even more seats in 2006. All of this is negated by the re-instution of a draft.

If anything, it will be a Democrat who will re-institute a draft. I remember there was one Democratic congressman (forget who) who proposed a bill last year to re-institute a draft in order to force ruling presidents to be more prudent in using military force (since now their relatives are liable to be drafted). A draft amounts to political suicide.

[wood elf]

Many nations around the world use a draft. Is it such a terrible thing? Some have a fine military tradition where others do not. Is it likely that the problem is leadership, principle and patriotism rather than the draft itself? Two fine examples. Switzerland has a draft but has a fine and honorable military. The French Foriegn legion was volunteer but had no such reputation for their behavoir.

[koolking1]

Armies are sometimes called upon to settle civil unrest. Up until Hurricane Katrina, USA Federal troops were never called upon, Constituional requirements were honored. Neither were armed security company contractors called upon. All Federal troops today are volunteers and have been for some 30 years now. The Army has been changed from a concept of "citizen-soldier" to "professional warrior". In contrast, the Soviet Red Army had been, up until the demise of the Soviet Union, made up of mostly conscripts with a cadre of professional officers and nco's. During the counter-coup attempt by remnants of the Soviet regime, Soviet troops with heavy tank support were ordered in to give some teeth to the counter-coup elements holed up in the Kremlin. 1000s of protestors outside of the Kremlin were in grave danger. But, a miracle happened, the mostly conscripted Soviet Army troops refused to shoot their fellow citizens. The counter-coup was finished off without bloodshed.

Up until it seems yesterday, the United States government was not acknowledging any serious problem with the Avian bird flu. Now, the Commander-in-Chief, President George Bush, is suggesting that only the Army will be able to handle possible forced quarantines of specific geographical areas that my be affected by this flu. This could get interesting.

[belgareth]

You make a good case for the draft. An army of citizen soldiers would seem less likely to fire on their fellow man. My biggest fear is a government that is becoming more and more oppressive. The use of an all volunteer service to quell the masses is a scary thought.

The other side of it is the overall poor quality of the soviet army. Rather than rely of skill the soviet army relied on massive number making a lot of young people not much more than living targets for their opponents.

[koolking1]

"The other side of it is the overall poor quality of the soviet army. Rather than rely of skill the soviet army relied on massive number making a lot of young people not much more than living targets for their opponents."

That's exactly true and one big reason the Soviets (behind closed doors though) were never really considered a serious threat to USA security. Of course, the general public only heard of the Red Menace to keep them frightened.

[belgareth]

There's a whole mentality discussion here that I intended to address in another thread. In order to maintain the fiction of our need for a big government there must always be an outside enemy. Think "1984". Without an outside threat to stand together against, much of the government's purpose wanes and they can't have that. Mustn't let the taxpayer funded empires within our government be dismantled. Once the USSR collapsed it was critical to develop new enemies to protect us from. A majority of government functionality is no more than smoke and mirrors. They create and fill the need where without the government's interference those needs would not exist in the first place. I've always found it rather appalling that otherwise intelligent people fall into that trap.

[Michael Nardoni]

If they would pass a law that makes it mandatory all high school grads must serve a minimum of two years in the military , They would not need to reinstate the the draft . We would have plenty of military man power , Not only that it would be a great Character builder , For the screwed up youth our society is putting out in the streets today.

[koolking1]

Hi Michael, the problem with your proposal is that the military doesn't need that many people. They really only need a small percentage of the pool of 18-22 years olds but even so, they are having trouble recruiting. I sorta like your idea and sorta don't. Honestly, not everyone is cut out for it. I would prefer to see them draft in the college age bracket - smarter, more level-headed folks.

[belgareth]

His idea does have merit, Koolking. Add the stipulation that only some of the draftees serve in the armed forces. There is a lot of civil service work to do as well.

[koolking1]

that I would go for. Would be good for the kids too but they wouldn't realize it for years later.

[belgareth]

That wouldn't be much different than you and me, would it?

[Biohazard]

There's an ideological problem with mandating military service in today's era of America. It's basically inferring that .gov owns each person to some extent. The citizens of a more socialistic society might be okay with that idea, but Americans tend to view themselves as individuals. Volunteerism and charity, rather than obligatory action, is today's accepted norm. Know anyone who is truly happy about the amount of income tax they pay? How many people would be in favor of a "volunteer tax," whereby you can pay anywhere from let's say 5-50%?

I disagree with you guys on the merits of a draft. Each generation of older guys has the same negative view of the youth in their era. And in 20 years when I'm in my 40s, I'm sure I'll be saying the same thing of the then 18-25 guys. But I actually believe today's youth are contributing more to society than in previous eras. Sure, there are more fat, lazy, nintendo-playing kids today. But I get the feeling that volunteerism and generosity is also more common among today's youth than ever before. Just look at all the different social help groups that exist today. And also educational pursuit is as high today than it has ever been. Look at the stiff competition for spots in top tier colleges now. So to say that today's youth need some shaping up is a little off-base. Besides, it's not .gov's responsibility to shape kids up. That's a job for parents.

Now, why doesn't the volunteerism of today's youth translate to increased popularity of military service? That's a tough one to answer. Possibly, in the absence of a grave foreign threat equivilent to the German-Japan axis of WWII, today's youth don't feel a real sense of urgency to serve the country in a uniform.

[belgareth]

There's an ideological problem with mandating military service in today's era of America. It's basically inferring that .gov owns each person to some extent. The citizens of a more socialistic society might be okay with that idea, but Americans tend to view themselves as individuals. Volunteerism and charity, rather than obligatory action, is today's accepted norm. Know anyone who is truly happy about the amount of income tax they pay? How many people would be in favor of a "volunteer tax," whereby you can pay anywhere from let's say 5-50%?
Citizens of less socialist societies generally recognize an obligation to serve their country. I make a differentiation between country and government here. IMHO, our government sucks big time. However, this is still our country and if more people took an interest in helping it to be a better place instead of demanding the country and the government do for them or even just apathetically sitting on their hands, it would be a different place. What exactly is your obligation to your country and what do you do to fulfill it?

I disagree with you guys on the merits of a draft. Each generation of older guys has the same negative view of the youth in their era. And in 20 years when I'm in my 40s, I'm sure I'll be saying the same thing of the then 18-25 guys. But I actually believe today's youth are contributing more to society than in previous eras. Sure, there are more fat, lazy, nintendo-playing kids today. But I get the feeling that volunteerism and generosity is also more common among today's youth than ever before. Just look at all the different social help groups that exist today. And also educational pursuit is as high today than it has ever been. Look at the stiff competition for spots in top tier colleges now. So to say that today's youth need some shaping up is a little off-base. Besides, it's not .gov's responsibility to shape kids up. That's a job for parents.

While I respect the fact that you have every right to an opinion, the belief that older generations have a problem with younger ones is pure tripe. Having grown up in the 60's and 70's I'd also strongly disagree that there is more involvement from younger people today. I work with a service club, we built a playground recently. Despite all our efforts to recruit younger people to help us, the average age of workers was close to 50. Maybe our years has given us perspective on involvement and responsibilities that younger people don't have yet because they haven't been there and done that.

I do agree with you that it is the parent's part to provide early education in social particiation. It would be nice if more parents would do so. However, that does not change anything once they turn 18, they then have the rights and obligations of an adult. The parents work is, in theory, done. Like it or not, social participation is at an all time low with young people leading the trend.

In my own case, I did not start college until completing military service. I can tell you from experience how much more I got out of school than the people just a few years younger than me who had no real world experience. A lot of bright young people who just didn't get what the prof was saying because they had no experience to relate to it.

Now, why doesn't the volunteerism of today's youth translate to increased popularity of military service? That's a tough one to answer. Possibly, in the absence of a grave foreign threat equivilent to the German-Japan axis of WWII, today's youth don't feel a real sense of urgency to serve the country in a uniform.
You didn't address the other part of the suggestion. For those who feel strongly about not wanting military work, what about civil service work? There is a huge, unfilled need there too.

[Netghost56]

I'd be interested in taking an active role in government (if not for my background), but I doubt my views would be accepted, plus I'd be the only green liberal in a room full of redcoats :lol:

I do agree with you that it is the parent's part to provide early education in social particiation. It would be nice if more parents would do so. However, that does not change anything once they turn 18, they then have the rights and obligations of an adult. The parents work is, in theory, done. Like it or not, social participation is at an all time low with young people leading the trend.
You have to realize what a young person is thinking about when they're 18. Once they graduate they need a job (if not already employed), or go to college. With the way things are, I believe more and more will head into the workplace right out of high school, which means they'll be working menial jobs. Obviously, many will be able to advance, but for the rest, it's a grim future, and with no job security, they won't be much dedicated to their job duties. Hence, you have young people drifting from job to job, they've already given up their dreams long ago, now they just want to survive, and many are full of anguish, which hurts them and their jobs (and the consumer). What's left? For many, acceptance of their place in life, marriage, kids, mortgage. For others, drugs/alcohol, crime, and/or depression. Neither outlook is tantalizing to me.


In my own case, I did not start college until completing military service. I can tell you from experience how much more I got out of school than the people just a few years younger than me who had no real world experience. A lot of bright young people who just didn't get what the prof was saying because they had no experience to relate to it.
Most young people don't have the luxury of time these days. Financial aid (The ones you actually have a chance to get) institutions most often want you to go right to college, the time of eligibility is usually just one year, starting in your last semester of high school. If you were to take a full year off (or more) then even if you get FA you'll have to pay part of the fees out of your pocket. True, if I were to go back to college next year I wouldn't have sleep through all my classes. But most people just can't afford to waste time now.

You didn't address the other part of the suggestion. For those who feel strongly about not wanting military work, what about civil service work? There is a huge, unfilled need there too.

There's no openings in this area. Plus most of our civil employees are the rudest people you could meet. That's not very encouraging for those jobs.

[belgareth]

I'd be interested in taking an active role in government (if not for my background), but I doubt my views would be accepted, plus I'd be the only green liberal in a room full of redcoats :lol:
Have you tried it? You might be surprised. I also wonder why you wouldn't want to voice an opinion if they are so far away from what you believe.


You have to realize what a young person is thinking about when they're 18. Once they graduate they need a job (if not already employed), or go to college. With the way things are, I believe more and more will head into the workplace right out of high school, which means they'll be working menial jobs. Obviously, many will be able to advance, but for the rest, it's a grim future, and with no job security, they won't be much dedicated to their job duties. Hence, you have young people drifting from job to job, they've already given up their dreams long ago, now they just want to survive, and many are full of anguish, which hurts them and their jobs (and the consumer). What's left? For many, acceptance of their place in life, marriage, kids, mortgage. For others, drugs/alcohol, crime, and/or depression. Neither outlook is tantalizing to me.

You have to realize I was a young person at one time too and have a decent memory.

So, why wouldn't many, if not almost all, of them want the opportunity to do something to gain job skills and build up some educational funds. The latter is the only reason I joined the military. Times have been worse and have been better but those that succeed in either of those times were the ones who took every opportunity they could get.

You need to understand a different point of view. Dispair and dejection are your choice to make. You are exactly what you decide to be, same as I am. Anguish is fine if that's how you choose to live your life but, by what right do you take that out on the job you do for somebody else? When you hired on you agreed to do a job. Part of doing that job is doing it the best you can despite circumstances. If you are unwilling to do the job to the best of your ability, go find another job you'll do better at. To accept a job and not do the best you can at it is to break an implied contract with the employer and the public you serve. That's no different than breaking your word any other time and it is always wrong.


Most young people don't have the luxury of time these days. Financial aid (The ones you actually have a chance to get) institutions most often want you to go right to college, the time of eligibility is usually just one year, starting in your last semester of high school. If you were to take a full year off (or more) then even if you get FA you'll have to pay part of the fees out of your pocket. True, if I were to go back to college next year I wouldn't have sleep through all my classes. But most people just can't afford to waste time now.

You are contradicting yourself. Are these the same 'most' that are drifting around trying to survive? Every grant I've seen has stipulations for military service but I haven't seen them all by any measure. You are also forgetting that a person can attend college classes while in the military. The military also has sign up bonuses that can be banked and funds matching programs to help build up a nest egg for school.

There's no openings in this area. Plus most of our civil employees are the rudest people you could meet. That's not very encouraging for those jobs.
So? And...? Are you telling me that you would turn down an opportunity to move to New Orleans if the government was willing to feed, clothe, shelter and pay you to work there for two years? How about Arizona? New York?

Netghost, I am going to apologise in advance because I am going to be blunt and you'll probably be offended.

So what if you can't get a job in your home town, move! I did it, as did many others. The above is defeatist bullshit! I got the same bullshit from one of my daughters about six months ago.

In my daughter's case, she was whining that she couldn't find a job and wanted me to take over her car and insurance payments. We made a deal, she would follow my instructions to the letter on job hunting for one month, if she wasn't working by then we would help her on a month to month basis. In four days she had half a dozen job prospects, in the next week two offers. She went to work. Next she claimed she didn't make enough money so we went back to my instructions and within a month she had a better job.

The process is so simple as to be absurd, any child can do it. Dress nicely, carry notes of everything you'll need for an application and go to a business area. Start at one corner and enter every business and tell them you are looking for work. Don't turn down anything you are capable of doing, be willing to shovel manure or clean toilets and be prepared to start work right now. Have a great, not just good, attitude. When you get to the end of the block, cross the street and work your way back. Repeat as needed. Once you are working, do the job to the very best of your ability, no matter what the job is. After a couple of months you can use your free time to look for a better job if this one doesn't suit you. You look for a better job in much the same way but have the freedom to turn down anything equal to or less than what you already have.

My own story is going to sound like one of those "Why, when I was your age..." tales but I assure you every word of it is true. When I finished high scool there was little work as the economy was in a recession. I joined the army. After my release from duty I decided to go to school. The school that I wished to attend was about 400 miles away. I arrived there with about $250 in my pocket and all the possessions I could carry on my motorcycle. Sold the motorcycle to put a roof over my head and feed myself, bought a bicycle. Followed my instructions from above which came to me from my dad who grew up during the great depression. Enrolled in school. For the next four years I worked evenings 40 hours a week, commuted by bicycle most of that and attended engineering school. Do you want to know all the different ways you can prepare a $0.10 bag of ramen noodles? I'm an expert at it.

Since then I've had a number of jobs, been broke a share of the time and did well some of it. Worked my way up to a corporate executive level then started a small business. Damn near went broke my first year at that. Now it's a thriving business and I'm one of the most content people around.

Do you know what the point is? The point is I never once told anybody why I couldn't do something. Instead I found a way to get where I was going. ANYBODY who wants too bad enough can do the same thing, all it takes is hard work and a lack of excuses.

[koolking1]

"But I actually believe today's youth are contributing more to society than in previous eras. Sure, there are more fat, lazy, nintendo-playing kids today. But I get the feeling that volunteerism and generosity is also more common among today's youth than ever before."

BioHazard, I do believe you when you say the above. You "feel" it to be true. Unfortunately, your feelings and reality are not in synch. I do believe you have a certain amount of respect for deceased President Kennedy based upon past posting(s), is that because of his Peace Corps initiative or ??? At any rate, back in the 60s the Peace Corps was filled mainly with idealistic youth, mainly of college age and somewhat older (22-28). In order for you not to have to feel your way around, why not do some research and find out the average age of a Peace Corps volunteer is these days - give it a shot, get the truth and not some feel good feelings!!!

If we had a voluntary tax system we all know the country would be broke in short order (not that it isn't anyway). We have a voluntary military though, is it broke? Well I don't "feel" that it's quite broke but one might ask the CINCs of the Guard and Reserves what they think? Did you see the reaction to President Bush the last time he made a canned rah rah speech in front of a captive military audience? Those boys and girls ain't happy, who would be if they were on their way to their 3rd combat tour in almost as many years. Aside from all my other reasons why I want a draft (which I will soon chronicle here) let's consider those going over there for the 3rd time, might it not be a noble gesture on your part to volunteer and replace one of them? Yes, it would be.

[Biohazard]

Citizens of less socialist societies generally recognize an obligation to serve their country. I make a differentiation between country and government here. IMHO, our government sucks big time. However, this is still our country and if more people took an interest in helping it to be a better place instead of demanding the country and the government do for them or even just apathetically sitting on their hands, it would be a different place. What exactly is your obligation to your country and what do you do to fulfill it?
…
You didn't address the other part of the suggestion. For those who feel strongly about not wanting military work, what about civil service work? There is a huge, unfilled need there too


If someone gains a technical skill through formal education, let’s say in medicine, engineering, science, etc., it invariably helps our country be a better place. Technology drives our economy while at the same time providing services that generally make our lives more efficient. This is what I do, I just happen to be compensated fairly well for it. It might not have the immediate emotional impact equivalent to handing out food after a natural disaster, but it’s far from being apathetic. Serving food at a soup kitchen isn’t the only way to help our fellow citizens. But in my early adulthood, I have seen many of my 18-25 y/o colleagues volunteer for civil service for no pay. Some have volunteered at health clinics between med school semesters, some have tutored kids, and yes, some have even built a playground believe it or not. There are plenty of universities in the country that are filled with such self-motivated, driven young adults. They must be to have made it that far.

Do I need to pick up a rifle to serve my country? I could (heck I even personally own military firearms), and I certainly would if absolutely needed as I stated in my first post. I just do not think it is absolutely needed now. And would it bother anyone if I serve in the military as a biological/chemical weapons scientist?


In my own case, I did not start college until completing military service. I can tell you from experience how much more I got out of school than the people just a few years younger than me who had no real world experience. A lot of bright young people who just didn't get what the prof was saying because they had no experience to relate to it.

Real-world experience can certainly enhance one’s educational experience in certain fields of study. Many MBA programs don’t allow applicants until they’ve been working full-time for 2+ years. Since I studied natural science, real-world experience wouldn’t have helped me much since it’s almost a purely technical field.

So, I still do not think you’ve made a convincing argument for the benefits of mandatory military service. But it seems we do agree that military service can be beneficial for some. I just don’t think we need to make it mandatory.

[belgareth]

If someone gains a technical skill through formal education, let’s say in medicine, engineering, science, etc., it invariably helps our country be a better place. Technology drives our economy while at the same time providing services that generally make our lives more efficient. This is what I do, I just happen to be compensated fairly well for it. It might not have the immediate emotional impact equivalent to handing out food after a natural disaster, but it’s far from being apathetic. Serving food at a soup kitchen isn’t the only way to help our fellow citizens. But in my early adulthood, I have seen many of my 18-25 y/o colleagues volunteer for civil service for no pay. Some have volunteered at health clinics between med school semesters, some have tutored kids, and yes, some have even built a playground believe it or not. There are plenty of universities in the country that are filled with such self-motivated, driven young adults. They must be to have made it that far.

Do I need to pick up a rifle to serve my country? I could (heck I even personally own military firearms), and I certainly would if absolutely needed as I stated in my first post. I just do not think it is absolutely needed now. And would it bother anyone if I serve in the military as a biological/chemical weapons scientist?

In other words, you don't feel you should do things to help out or that other than earning a living you have no obligation? So, you have a technical degree? Having a substantial technical education myself and having worked in technology all my life I think I have a grasp of how much good it can do. Your employment mostly helps you, what about the rest of society? You also didn't answer the question about doing it as civil service work. Overall, your reply is pretty much what I expected though. Without trying to be snide about it, that's a dodge.

Why should it bother anyone if you served as a chemical or biological weapons specialist? We do not use those weapons so any work you might do would be life saving.


Real-world experience can certainly enhance one’s educational experience in certain fields of study. Many MBA programs don’t allow applicants until they’ve been working full-time for 2+ years. Since I studied natural science, real-world experience wouldn’t have helped me much since it’s almost a purely technical field.

So, I still do not think you’ve made a convincing argument for the benefits of mandatory military service. But it seems we do agree that military service can be beneficial for some. I just don’t think we need to make it mandatory.
I think in time you'll see it differently. So, you don't feel some type of real world experience in the natural sciences would have helped you? Real world experience helps in many ways that aren't apparent on the face of it. The people in calculus classes who had real world experience were better at grasping things too. I think it has more to do with a mindset than anything else.

You still haven't addressed the part about the option of civil work rather than military. Would you be adverse to that? You haven't made any case yet for not making it mandatory either

[Netghost56]

Belgareth, I wasn't wasn't speaking of myself, except in the first paragraph. I was just generalizing and giving my opinion.

[belgareth]

The you was figurative in some cases as well. It's nearly impossible for me to accept "I can't" from anybody, most especially myself. I have no sympathy for those who choose their lives then complain or for those that do less than their best. For every bad thing that has happened in my own life I can see where my actions put me into the position for them to happen. For every good thing, the same applies. The point is still the same; each and every person unhappy with their lives can only blame themselves for not choosing another path or for staying on the path they are on. Each and every happily successful person can move forward knowing they are creating themselves.

To be honest, I was quite impressed when we all thought the hurricane was coming our way. You got up and did all the right things to take control of your life. Not once did you whine about how unfair it was or abandon those around you or wait for others to do for you. You showed something of tremendous importance that you would do well to cultivate in all your personal affairs. If I seem harsh towards others, you should hear the words I have for myself when my actions are less than they should be. Don't ever accept less than you can be and if you are not what you want to be, you are the only one who can make it different. That can only be achieved by your own actions.

[koolking1]

Now all I hope is that they discipline any soldiers who sent in pics of war dead/wounded, a national disgrace ended finally.

"Polk County Web site operator arrested on obscenity charges

Anthony Colarossi | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted October 7, 2005, 10:23 PM EDT

Chris Wilson (POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE)
Oct 7, 2005

A Polk County man who operates a pornographic Web site that also displays disturbing images of Iraqi and Afghan war dead sent in by U.S. troops has been arrested on 300 obscenity-related charges.

Polk authorities arrested Chris Wilson, 27, of Edgewood Drive in Lakeland, said his attorney, Larry Walters. Sheriff's officials said Wilson was being held at the Polk County Jail with bail set at $151,000.

Wilson is charged with one count of wholesale distribution of obscene material and 300 misdemeanor counts related to 20 online films and 80 photographs obtained from his Web site.

For each film and photograph there are three counts -- distribution of obscene material, offering to distribute obscene material and possession of obscene material with intent to distribute."

[DrSmellThis]

Now all I hope is that they discipline any soldiers who sent in pics of war dead/wounded, a national disgrace ended finally.

"Polk County Web site operator arrested on obscenity charges

Anthony Colarossi | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted October 7, 2005, 10:23 PM EDT

Chris Wilson (POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE)
Oct 7, 2005

A Polk County man who operates a pornographic Web site that also displays disturbing images of Iraqi and Afghan war dead sent in by U.S. troops has been arrested on 300 obscenity-related charges.

Polk authorities arrested Chris Wilson, 27, of Edgewood Drive in Lakeland, said his attorney, Larry Walters. Sheriff's officials said Wilson was being held at the Polk County Jail with bail set at $151,000.

Wilson is charged with one count of wholesale distribution of obscene material and 300 misdemeanor counts related to 20 online films and 80 photographs obtained from his Web site.

For each film and photograph there are three counts -- distribution of obscene material, offering to distribute obscene material and possession of obscene material with intent to distribute."Sounds like another First Amendment case may be going to the Supreme Court. I find what he did to be offensive, from what I read, though I haven't seen the site. But was it illegal? Should he be thrown in prison?

[Biohazard]

In other words, you don't feel you should do things to help out or that other than earning a living you have no obligation? So, you have a technical degree? Having a substantial technical education myself and having worked in technology all my life I think I have a grasp of how much good it can do. Your employment mostly helps you, what about the rest of society? You also didn't answer the question about doing it as civil service work. Overall, your reply is pretty much what I expected though. Without trying to be snide about it, that's a dodge.

Correct, my employment mostly helps me directly now, but it will help many down the road. I emphasized this already. My work doesn't put an immediate smile on a needy child's face everyday, but it will do so for many eventually. And that's a big reason why I do what I do, in addition to being able to be self-sufficient. Even you said people ought to take more personal responsibility in their own well-being, and that there's too much of the "society owes me" mentality around. If one is drafted to the military for civil service work, are they not paid for what they do? I don't know anyone who can take a career in civil service without a salary.


Why should it bother anyone if you served as a chemical or biological weapons specialist? We do not use those weapons so any work you might do would be life saving.

It's obvious I'm pro-military, and therefore many ask me if I would ever serve. But what they're really asking is whether or not I'd be willing to be on battlefield and put myself in direct danger. And I would if needed, but pointing out that one can serve without being in the direct line of fire is sort of a return jab. But it's obvious you weren't asking me that, but I thought maybe koolking was.


You still haven't addressed the part about the option of civil work rather than military. Would you be adverse to that? You haven't made any case yet for not making it mandatory either

No, I would not be adversed to it. But why does one need to be in a uniform to serve their communities?

My argument against a draft is based more on practical issues. First, I honestly do believe it would weaken our fighting capabilites. Every military person I know personally agrees. Also, there is too much resistance today against a draft that there would be some serious civil unrest and social breakdown if one were to be re-instated now. If you're talking about a draft for purely non-fighting positions, we're kind of drifting away from the original topic.

But I'll get back to you on that. I gotta run.

[Biohazard]

Okay belgareth, I'm back and I re-read your posts a little more carefully now. Are you suggesting that the federal government ought to hold some sort of draft where selected young men and women are not trained for combat, but rather trained and paid to carry out domestic public services? I'm sorry, but that seems a little silly. The federal government really shouldn't be in charge of employing people to clean up beaches, build playgrounds, serve food at soup kitchens, plant trees, etc. That's just piling up more beuracracy into domestic life and would be an inefficient use of tax payer dollars. These duties are best left to the various civilian entities.

Ideally, the federal government's role in domestic life should be kept to the extreme minimum. The obvious exception would be responding to catastrophes, and they can't even get that right for the most part. The military sector of the federal government should be in the business of training people for combat.

Please clarify if I'm misinterpreting you. I'm trying to decipher your idea of what type of "draft" ought to be re-implemented. When koolking started this thread, we were talking about a draft used to fight wars. But it seems like you have another idea.

[belgareth]

That's not suggesting anything. I'm asking you a question.

[Biohazard]

That's not suggesting anything. I'm asking you a question.

I didn't quite understand your question initially, which is why I asked for clarification. But I've answered your question above now that I catch your drift. I think it's an inefficient use of funds for the feds to have a program of "purely civil service draftees." This sounds almost communistic, and honestly it's the first time I've ever heard of such an idea. The military exists for combat, not building domestic infrastructure.

So now we've come full circle. The purely civil service draft idea exists only as a fantasy, and a military combat draft would never make it through in this day and age. We're just back to my very first post now, where I stated things are going to stay the way they are now.

[belgareth]

Ok, so your only obligation to your country is to have a job and earn a living and even a draft to serve some needed civil function would be wrong. Does that sum it up?

[Biohazard]

Ok, so your only obligation to your country is to have a job and earn a living and even a draft to serve some needed civil function would be wrong. Does that sum it up?

If you are drafted for civil service, you will get paid (by the gov't) and you will be earning a living performing civil service. How is that different from a civilian performing the same work for pay? The only difference is the government uniform. Earning a living and performing civil service are not mutually exclusive as you make it sound. "Obligation" to your community is fulfilled in many ways.

Civil service in and of itself is ideologically noble and I have already stated I am not adversed to it. Holding a draft for that sole purpose is not economically sound and therefore wrong (i.e. bad for the country in the end). One doesn't need to be employed by .gov in order to be of service to their community.

[belgareth]

However, the simple act of being employed, no matter what field you work in, does not constitute serving your country. I could easily make the same claim since I provide a technical service to the community and I employ others. Personally, I think that would be a bunch of crap. What is yours, or any citizen's, responsibility to their country?

[Mtnjim]

Were the draft reinstated, the “civil service” draft would surely only be for “conscientious objectors”. The military would need all of the “cannon fodder” it could get. Speaking as someone who was drafted---several times!!

[Biohazard]

However, the simple act of being employed, no matter what field you work in, does not constitute serving your country. I could easily make the same claim since I provide a technical service to the community and I employ others. Personally, I think that would be a bunch of crap. What is yours, or any citizen's, responsibility to their country?

But why does one need to work for the government in order to serve their country? It seems like you keep trying to lead me into agreeing with you that you need to be on government payroll in order to serve. Sure, one way to serve is to help fight a war, in which case you need to be in uniform as part of the armed forces or be employed by private security contractors working in a warzone. But if you’re talking about domestic jobs like coaching youth baseball and building playgrounds, there is no necessity to be employed by the government. That’s turning civilian sector jobs into a government-paid career. Your problem with the country is that there’s not enough volunteerism in your eyes. But if you draft and pay people to do those very jobs, how have you solved the problem?

My responsibility to the country is to help fight a war if drafted, which I stated in my very first post. Yes, I have a responsibility to my local community as well through volunteerism. If the government pays me to do it, then it's not volunteerism anymore. And I have done plenty of volunteering in my younger years. My volunteerism has tailed off now that I have a full-time career, but that's to be expected.

[Biohazard]

Were the draft reinstated, the “civil service” draft would surely only be for “conscientious objectors”. The military would need all of the “cannon fodder” it could get. Speaking as someone who was drafted---several times!!

That might be a reasonable idea. In the unlikely event of a draft, maybe it could be eased back in by giving draftees the option of serving in a tank on a battlefield or serving by repairing the tanks behind battle lines. But then, one would still be supporting a war that they "conscientiously object" to.

Still, I think forcing people to work for the government is not really an accepted concept in America anymore.

[belgareth]

But why does one need to work for the government in order to serve their country? It seems like you keep trying to lead me into agreeing with you that you need to be on government payroll in order to serve. Sure, one way to serve is to help fight a war, in which case you need to be in uniform as part of the armed forces or be employed by private security contractors working in a warzone. But if you’re talking about domestic jobs like coaching youth baseball and building playgrounds, there is no necessity to be employed by the government. That’s turning civilian sector jobs into a government-paid career. Your problem with the country is that there’s not enough volunteerism in your eyes. But if you draft and pay people to do those very jobs, how have you solved the problem?

My responsibility to the country is to help fight a war if drafted, which I stated in my very first post. Yes, I have a responsibility to my local community as well through volunteerism. If the government pays me to do it, then it's not volunteerism anymore. And I have done plenty of volunteering in my younger years. My volunteerism has tailed off now that I have a full-time career, but that's to be expected.

No, that's not what I am saying at all. Nor am I trying to lead you into agreeing to anything. I want to know what you believe your obligation is to the society you live in. I can't think of any other way to phrase it. Have you no other obligation to society than what you mention above?

[belgareth]

That might be a reasonable idea. In the unlikely event of a draft, maybe it could be eased back in by giving draftees the option of serving in a tank on a battlefield or serving by repairing the tanks behind battle lines. But then, one would still be supporting a war that they "conscientiously object" to.

Still, I think forcing people to work for the government is not really an accepted concept in America anymore.

You are forced to work for the government for approximately six months out of every year through taxation.

[Biohazard]

You are forced to work for the government for approximately six months out of every year through taxation.

And no one really likes it.

[belgareth]

The/we continue to allow it. Some even speak of increasing taxes for one reason or another. Take the cigarette tax as an example. There's a hord of other examples as well but the idiocy of that one always stands out.

[Biohazard]

No, that's not what I am saying at all. Nor am I trying to lead you into agreeing to anything. I want to know what you believe your obligation is to the society you live in. I can't think of any other way to phrase it. Have you no other obligation to society than what you mention above?

I don't know how much more one is expected to give. I'm an able-bodied male of military age, and I said I'd give my services to fight a war in the hypothetical situation of a draft. I've given to my local community when I could through volunteerism. The rest of the time I use to improve myself.

What other obligation do I have besides giving what I can?

[Biohazard]

The/we continue to allow it. Some even speak of increasing taxes for one reason or another. Take the cigarette tax as an example. There's a hord of other examples as well but the idiocy of that one always stands out.

I don't think we'll allow any type of draft, however.

[belgareth]

I never said otherwise.

However, I think you kid yourself. 'We' will never allow a draft is poppycock. You operate under the assumptions that the people are in control and are subject to rational thought and behavoir when there are examples all around you demonstrating otherwise. The small percentage of the people really needed to swing support to a draft are not that hard to convince. If you doubt that, look at what has been done in Homeland Security with our full consent. How many rights did we cheerfully give away?

I'm just trying to get a clear idea of what you think your obligations to the community and your country are. I don't have time to discuss it this morning but will come back to it later.

[belgareth]

I don't know how much more one is expected to give. I'm an able-bodied male of military age, and I said I'd give my services to fight a war in the hypothetical situation of a draft. I've given to my local community when I could through volunteerism. The rest of the time I use to improve myself.

What other obligation do I have besides giving what I can?

That's my question. I'm not asking what you do, have done, won't do or can't do. I am asking what your obligation is. It's a moral/ethical question.

[Mtnjim]

...Take the cigarette tax as an example. There's a hord of other examples as well but the idiocy of that one always stands out.

I think the "Excise tax" that we pay for phone service, tires etc. is an even bigger idiocy. Enacted to fund the Spanish American war, a war that ended 100 years ago, it is still being collected.:hammer:

[Biohazard]

However, I think you kid yourself. 'We' will never allow a draft is poppycock. You operate under the assumptions that the people are in control and are subject to rational thought and behavoir when there are examples all around you demonstrating otherwise. The small percentage of the people really needed to swing support to a draft are not that hard to convince. If you doubt that, look at what has been done in Homeland Security with our full consent. How many rights did we cheerfully give away?



Many won't notice when you steal a dollar from them or insult them when they aren't paying attention. Try to cut off their pinky, and they'll notice and resist.

When New Orleans instituted gun confiscations, there was some major hollering going on. An appeal went through the judicial system and was successful, stopping the confiscations. I assume lawsuits are following as well for loss of property and possible violation of civil rights. How's that for a little resistance, short of violence? You're right, many people don't resist when they should. It takes something really outrageous before things get nasty, sometimes leading to riots (how many times has that happened in our country?). A draft is just the right recipe for that.

[Biohazard]

That's my question. I'm not asking what you do, have done, won't do or can't do. I am asking what your obligation is. It's a moral/ethical question.

I thought I answered that in my very first post. Maybe not about community service and social volunteerism, because this thread was about fighting wars.

It just took me a while to understand that what you really want is the government to pay young people to do what amounts to community service work. It's like saying, "You don't want to volunteer in your community? Fine, we'll pay you to vounteer." Makes no sense to me.

Fighting wars for the country (via draft if there is one) is a mutually exclusive obligation, and a much different one at that than building playgrounds in your neighborhood.

[belgareth]

While I don't agree it is as big an idiocy, it certainly stands as a good example when I claim there is no such thing as a temporary tax.

My reasoning behind the cigarette tax is simple enough. Politician A say it will raise so many dollars and it probably will at first. The government will use that mosey for whatever expenses allowing the budget grow to encompass every dime of it and likely a few extra dimes as well.

As a result of this tax a certain number of people will quit smoking and fewer will start, which is a good thing. However, that reduces the tax revenue that is a part of the government's new budget. So, the government comes back and says "We have a budget shortfall and need to find additional sources of revenue. Now we are going to tax this item" The same do-gooders who supported the cigarette tax will end up paying those tax dollars a couple years down the road because there aren't enough smokers to fill the coffers anymore and there's no such thing as a temporary tax.

In other words, it's all another government shell game.

[Mtnjim]

...My reasoning behind the cigarette tax is simple enough. Politician A say it will raise so many dollars and it probably will at first. The government will use that mosey for whatever expenses allowing the budget grow to encompass every dime of it and likely a few extra dimes as well....

True enough. The cigarette tax is passed as "providing funds to care for the people made ill by smoking", then used for everything but...

And the people made ill by smoking? They are out of luck.

[belgareth]

Now you've got it. The best part is that public memory is so short that they can pull it again and again and again and so on. Kind of like social security. It's broke, let's increase taxes and cut services. Then we can raid it to balance the budget. In a few years we can claim it's broke and do it again.

[belgareth]

Many won't notice when you steal a dollar from them or insult them when they aren't paying attention. Try to cut off their pinky, and they'll notice and resist.

When New Orleans inst